2,295 research outputs found
Argumentation Ranking Semantics based on Propagation
International audienceArgumentation is based on the exchange and the evaluation of interacting arguments. Unlike Dung's theory where arguments are either accepted or rejected, ranking-based semantics rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. We propose in this work six new ranking-based semantics. We argue that, contrarily to existing ranking semantics in the literature, that focus on evaluating attacks and defenses only, it is reasonable to give a prominent role to non-attacked arguments, as it is the case in standard Dung's semantics. Our six semantics are based on the propagation of the weight of each argument to its neighbors, where the weight of non-attacked arguments is greater than the attacked ones
Some Supplementaries to The Counting Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
Dung's abstract argumentation framework consists of a set of interacting
arguments and a series of semantics for evaluating them. Those semantics
partition the powerset of the set of arguments into two classes: extensions and
non-extensions. In order to reason with a specific semantics, one needs to take
a credulous or skeptical approach, i.e. an argument is eventually accepted, if
it is accepted in one or all extensions, respectively. In our previous work
\cite{ref-pu2015counting}, we have proposed a novel semantics, called
\emph{counting semantics}, which allows for a more fine-grained assessment to
arguments by counting the number of their respective attackers and defenders
based on argument graph and argument game. In this paper, we continue our
previous work by presenting some supplementaries about how to choose the
damaging factor for the counting semantics, and what relationships with some
existing approaches, such as Dung's classical semantics, generic gradual
valuations. Lastly, an axiomatic perspective on the ranking semantics induced
by our counting semantics are presented.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures, ICTAI 201
An Efficient Java-Based Solver for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: jArgSemSAT
Dung’s argumentation frameworks are adopted in a variety of applications, from
argument-mining, to intelligence analysis and legal reasoning. Despite this broad spectrum
of already existing applications, the mostly adopted solver—in virtue of its
simplicity—is far from being comparable to the current state-of-the-art solvers. On the
other hand, most of the current state-of-the-art solvers are far too complicated to be
deployed in real-world settings. In this paper we provide and extensive description of
jArgSemSAT, a Java re-implementation of ArgSemSAT. ArgSemSAT represents the best
single solver for argumentation semantics with the highest level of computational complexity.
We show that jArgSemSAT can be easily integrated in existing argumentation
systems (1) as an off-the-shelf, standalone, library; (2) as a Tweety compatible library;
and (3) as a fast and robust web service freely available on the Web. Our large experimental
analysis shows that—despite being written in Java—jArgSemSAT would have
scored in most of the cases among the three bests solvers for the two semantics with
highest computational complexity—Stable and Preferred—in the last competition on
computational models of argumentation
Labeled bipolar argumentation frameworks
An essential part of argumentation-based reasoning is to identify arguments in favor and against a statement or query, select the acceptable ones, and then determine whether or not the original statement should be accepted. We present here an abstract framework that considers two independent forms of argument interaction-support and conflict-and is able to represent distinctive information associated with these arguments. This information can enable additional actions such as: (i) a more in-depth analysis of the relations between the arguments; (ii) a representation of the user's posture to help in focusing the argumentative process, optimizing the values of attributes associated with certain arguments; and (iii) an enhancement of the semantics taking advantage of the availability of richer information about argument acceptability. Thus, the classical semantic definitions are enhanced by analyzing a set of postulates they satisfy. Finally, a polynomial-time algorithm to perform the labeling process is introduced, in which the argument interactions are considered.Fil: Escañuela Gonzalez, Melisa Gisselle. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas. Centro CientÃfico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Budan, Maximiliano Celmo David. Universidad Nacional de Santiago del Estero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas. Centro CientÃfico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Gerardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas. Centro CientÃfico Tecnológico Conicet - BahÃa Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación; ArgentinaFil: Simari, Guillermo Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientÃficas y Técnicas. Centro CientÃfico Tecnológico Conicet - BahÃa Blanca. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e IngenierÃa de la Computación; Argentin
Beyond reasonable doubt: a proposal for undecidedness blocking in abstract argumentation
In Dung’s abstract semantics, the label undecided is always propagated from the attacker to the attacked argument, unless the latter is also attacked by an accepted argument. In this work we propose undecidedness blocking abstract argumentation semantics where the undecided label is confined to the strong connected component where it was generated and it is not propagated to the other parts of the argumentation graph. We show how undecidedness blocking is a fundamental reasoning pattern absent in abstract argumentation but present in similar fashion in the ambiguity blocking semantics of Defeasible logic, in the beyond reasonable doubt legal principle or when someone gives someone else the benefit of the doubt. The resulting semantics, called SCC-void semantics, are defined using an SCC-recursive schema. The semantics are conflict-free and non-admissible, but they incorporate a more relaxed defence-based notion of admissibility. They allow reinstatement and they credulously accept what the corresponding Dung’s complete semantics accepts at least credulously
- …